FW: more specific routes in today reality
Koepp, Karsten Karsten.Koepp at lambdanet.net
Wed Nov 7 13:55:01 CET 2001
Nurani, I was missing a RIPE NCC hostmaster statement to this e-mail. Sascha quoted a hostmaster. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sascha E. Pollok [mailto:sp at iphh.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:33 PM > To: Gert Doering; Vladimir A. Jakovenko > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; routing-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: more specific routes in today reality <SNIP> > > "- If PI is requested for multi-homing please explain why > the second > provider cannot route PA space as a more specific > route (with the > PA block holder adding a more specific route too)." > > This was suggested from a RIPE NCC Hostmaster when sending a > PI-space req. This looks a little contrary to your opinion doesn't > it? > > Sascha > Has this been a mistake, or is this the default answer to PI requests sent to the NCC nowadays? Is the NCC seriously going to recommend this to the members? I don't recommend the use of PI to customers either, and I don't want to roll up the multi-homing discussion. But PI should remain provider- independent and PA should remain provider-aggregatable. Regards Karsten Sorry for the late posting in this thread...
[ lir-wg Archives ]